Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-29
SATURDAY. JANUARY 90, 1897
Mr.. Rovall's Last.

tOfnulOiNttiAl N StiNi N''s'V N"N'N 80 49,
need for an extra session of the den-
eral Assembly, there cannot be any
oyerpowering reason why the debt ques-
tion in any of its many forms should
be the subject of discussion by the
newspapers. Therefore we have "fought
shy" of that question ever since Gov
ernor LEE made il known that having
no new debt proposition to submit to
that body, and the revisers of the Code
not being ready to report, he would not
convene the General Assembly IN extra
session.
But We cannot allow Mr.. Roy
ALLs latest move in the interest
of his clients, the British bond
holders, to pass unnoticed. Let us
say first that we have had occasion
more than once to give him credit for
his fairness. He has no concealments-
no secrets. He takes no undue adyan-
tages of anybody. He has a logical
and legal mind. He is always "cock-
sure" that he is right What more ma
tural than that such a mans logic
should lead him to the conclusion that
if Judge BOND can entertain suits
against q sheriff, he can entertain suit
against a grand jury? EDMUND BURKE
4 - h,x -. FIRM ~
ment against whole people, but Mr..
ROYAIL knows how to sue a grand
jury, prosecuting attorney, and all
the State officers who aided and abetted
the grand jury in the work of finding ga
true bill against Mr.. RoYALL for an Of
fence against "the peace and dignity of
the Commonwealth" Messrs. THOMAS
PoTTs, JAMES H. HARGRovE, HENRY
BIUESISG, JOSEPH c. DICKERsoS, and
john II. SMITH, the members of the
jury which brought in the Indictment,
and WYSDHAM r. MEREDITH, the act
ing Commonwealth attorney, and
MorTox MARYE, FRANK Ct. RUFFIN, II.
W. F1oURNOY, and A. W. HAEMAN, the
State Board of Indemnity, have all
been called upon TO answer to Mr..
RoyALL.
and Why not &? If Judge BOND had
a right to entertain the suits which he
has heretofore allowed to be brought
in his court, why should he not super
wise the work of the States grand
juries in all of the State courts which
are held within his circuit-namely,
those of Maryland, West Virginia, Nir-
ginia, North Carolina, and South Caro-
lima? What a press of business his
Honor would have All that it would
be necessary for any person indicted
by grand jury in any one OF those
States to do in order to bring the case
within the jurisdiction Of Judge BOND
would be to allege that he was indicted
in violation of the Constitution OF
the United States, or, III the
case of negro, because of his
"race, color, and previous condition
OF servitude." Like Mr.. ROYALL, we
are only pursuing an assumed remedy
to its logical consequences. He will,
we know, understand that We mean no
disrespect to him, and would never
think of chasing the offence for which
he stands indicted with those to which
We have just alluded We refer to
those other indictments by way OF Illus
tration, and as an argument proving
that if Mr.. RoYALL's case is good one,
any person indicted in a State court
can bring a similar suit, let the merits
OF his suit be what they will.
If the case against Mr.. royal III
the Hastings Court is case of mali
cious prosecution we do not understand
how the question OF malice is to be de-
cided in Judge BONDS court before his
case comes to trial in the Hastings
Court, for if the petit jury should find
him guilty Of the offence with which he
stands indicted thenit would have been
shown that there was no malice and
consequently that he had no case topre-
sent TO the United States Court.
But perhaps Mr. royal will sue
the petit jury also. And Judge AT
K1sl-why is he not included amongst
the offenders against justice to whom
Mr.. ROYAL, aided by Judge BoND.
means to administer singing rebake ?
We are glad that Mr.. Royal has de
termined to test the question OF the ju-
risdictionSf the United States courts in
eases OF this sort Ii is time that the
several States knew the fact, If il be a
fact, that they have no rights which
Federal judge is bound to respect
Virginia is not more concerned in the
case than is New York or Massachusetts,
The gentlemen sued by Mr.. RoYALL
represent the sovereignty OF the Com
monwealth. if she has any, and ought
not to have to take the trouble even TO
employ lawyer, as we suppose they
will not II isthe Commonwealth s own
business. II is the Commonwealth
|, own law that Mr.. royal was indicted
I for violating 1t was in the Common
wealth's own court that the indictment
was found. II WAS the Commonwealth
own attorney that framed the indict-
nent II was the Commonwealth
own Judge that allowed all these things
to be done in his court, and therefore
did them all himself. Noneof these
things could have been done without
his consent.
But viii even Judge BosD assume
jurisdiction in such o case We have
said heretofore that he could do nothing
which would surprise u.s. Nevertheless,
we must admit that he aofH surprise US
81 be shall not dismiss Mr.. RoYALL's
Z <...t s<x.:oak tI,a administrators af ;,,o